Actually that's not correct, the eye will see a moving object much quicker than a stationary one, a good move is to descend at right angels to the direction of travel of the other aircraft. I am tempted to either paint or use a black or dark skin on my quad to make it easier to see as I live between 2 Hospitals where life flights come in, and man are they low.I had a helicopter passing by the other day also and I just froze up. Didn't know what to do as its hard to tell height and they were moving fast. Figure they can see a stationary object easier than one moving
Thanks for the advice. Like I said, I just froze. Hadn't really planned or thought about it before since it's rare to see a helicopter overhead where I was flying.Actually that's not correct, the eye will see a moving object much quicker than a stationary one, a good move is to descend away from the direction of travel of the other aircraft. I am tempted to either paint or use a black or dark skin on my quad to make it easier to see as I live between 2 Hospitals where life flights come in, and man are they low.
I agree with you, I was a 67N40 Phase team chief and our AH60's had collision avoidance and IFF. (although I doubt either could see a phantom)Having spent 13 years as an Avionics Tech on MH60's I will tell you with 100% certainty you are wrong. There is most definitely a radar as well as an IFF system(Flight data transmission system, for you) on each of those helicopters.
I had a helicopter passing by the other day also and I just froze up. Didn't know what to do as its hard to tell height and they were moving fast. Figure they can see a stationary object easier than one moving
Are we a true hazard to helicopters and airplanes? I cant help but wonder. If you think about how small phantoms are and how there is so much sky and different altitudes, angles, etc..... Seems like a 1 in 10 million chance.
Good grief! You were proven absolutely "wrong" on the radar/IFF information, now you're spouting nonsense about bringing down 747's! Can you point us to any verifiable information on all of these rotor-wing and fixed-wing aircraft being "taken down" "all of the time?"Absolutely! A bird strike CAN take down a 747. They take down small fixed wind and rotor-wing aircraft all the time. The damages would be similar with a Phantom. The likelihood.. how long have you been on this forum before you saw a potential hazard happen?
Good grief! You were proven absolutely "wrong" on the radar/IFF information, now you're spouting nonsense about bringing down 747's! Can you point us to any verifiable information on all of these rotor-wing and fixed-wing aircraft being "taken down" "all of the time?"
The FAA executive in charge of integrating unmanned aerial systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) says that if and when a small UAS (sUAS) and a manned aircraft collide, the manned aircraft isn't likely to suffer serious damage. Jim Williams was speaking to a nervous audience of helicopter operators at HAI Heli-Expo in Orlando (March 2015) and said that while there's never been a reported contact between an sUAS and a civilian aircraft, the military has some experience in that regard. In all cases the aircraft was virtually unscathed while the UAS was "smashed to pieces."Are we a true hazard to helicopters and airplanes? I cant help but wonder. If you think about how small phantoms are and how there is so much sky and different altitudes, angles, etc..... Seems like a 1 in 10 million chance.
Agreed. The human eye is absolutely the least reliable altitude instrument on the planet. Even experienced plots cannot accurately estimate how high something is - they are almost always wrong and the actual altitude is almost always higher than the estimate.You should have descended. Odds are the aircraft looks a lot lower (in altitude) than it really is due to its size. I always descend.
You stated.............. "The damages would be similar with a Phantom". That's the information I was referring to. Sorry I wasn't clearer.https://www.google.com/search?newwi...0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.img..0.0.0.Ze5lAC08Bzw
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&espv=2&biw=2560&bih=1475&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cesna+bird+strike&oq=cesna+bird+strike&gs_l=img.3...31228.32768.0.34256.5.5.0.0.0.1.136.432.4j1.5.0....0...1c.1.64.img..3.2.204.LK7_WhR1gEw#imgrc=V3sSOfJV1iNgNM%3A;niEmmq9kUPJGLM;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.campbells.org%2FAirplanes%2FairplaneGooseMidAir1.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vansairforce.com%2Fcommunity%2Farchive%2Findex.php%3Ft-26653.html;640;479
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/qantas-grounded-by-striking-birds/story-fn6bm6am-1225955219857
Next stupid question?
<snip> Jim Williams was speaking to a nervous audience of helicopter operators at HAI Heli-Expo in Orlando (March 2015) and said that while there's never been a reported contact between an sUAS and a civilian aircraft, </snip>
You stated.............. "The damages would be similar with a Phantom". That's the information I was referring to. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
I'm going in the "hysteria" direction, that so much of the media and general population seem to want to believe in. You seem to be predicting mass mayhem between our Phantoms and commercial and/or military aircraft. It hasn't happened, most likely will not happen, and I'll admit to getting a little ruffled when I start seeing dire consequences being predicted, such as our vehicles are going to be inflicting as much damage on them as the birds are. No, it is NOT "very likely" it would force a landing. That's just an emotional response. As Steve Mann said above...................... I dont get where you are going? The mass of a Phantom 3 is very similar to that of a many birds. Those birds DO have the potential to cause significant damage. Will it rip the plane/heli out of the sky?? Most likely not. But it is VERY likely that it would force a landing.